"Amélie" cover too racy for Lulu's partners

My cover image (from the original painting here) apparently proved too much for Lulu's partners in the 21st century as it did for Parisian society in the 19th century. So now it's been, well, changed, in the Book Promotion thread, in the hope it does not unduly shock. Yes, I'm irritated. Not at Lulu but at their partners. Next time I'll go for a full-busted female bursting her brassière.

Comments

They obviously don't know the difference between art and porn. Some social networking site has just deleted some nude art by some famous ancient artist (who's name slips my mind) that sells for £millions. Some algorithm deleted them, apparently. Makes you wonder what the software is progged to search for. Of course the deletions have been met by derision.

It's remarkable really, how few clothes an artist can get away with painting on, before the image is banned as potential 'porn.' I have such art ( as above) on a POD site that deals with images, and they have the option to set to 18+ when uploading, and one cannot see them unless one is logged in, with, I assume, stating one is over 18 when opening an account. (Not that they ask for proof.)

They obviously don't know the difference between art and porn. Some social networking site has just deleted some nude art by some famous ancient artist (who's name slips my mind) that sells for £millions. Some algorithm deleted them, apparently. Makes you wonder what the software is progged to search for. Of course the deletions have been met by derision.

It's remarkable really, how few clothes an artist can get away with painting on, before the image is banned as potential 'porn.' I have such art ( as above) on a POD site that deals with images, and they have the option to set to 18+ when uploading, and one cannot see them unless one is logged in, with, I assume, stating one is over 18 when opening an account. (Not that they ask for proof.)

Indeed. Sotheby's advertised the "Rolla" painting at 400–600K GBP. It sold for 1,385 [EDIT: 1.385 million] GBP. The image earns its "Morning after" title, but does it as art, not porn. FWIW, Amélie is marked "18+" or whatever the Lulu designation is, so presumably it won't end up in the children's literature section.

I am not sure if the 18+ (is Lulu's Adult setting actually 18+?) carries over to every site, but some places are very puritanical anyway, and like to 'protect' their viewers from seeing things they may not approve of. Perhaps they also have sex in the dark ...

Believe it or not, the first "pornography" -- literally the graphics made by the Pornai -- consisted of nothing more than bare female footprints on sidewalks, leading to a house of ill-repute. Those who made the footprints, the Pornai, were the lowest class of "streetwalkers" -- literally, as they advertised by walking with painted feet in the streets.

So, one must ask, is a bare footprint pornographic? well, in the most literal (and etymological) of all senses, it obviously must be; In the middle sense, it can be if one is inclined to think of it thusly; and in the most conservative of senses, it is obviously not.

One is reminded of the joke about the man who is shown a series of Rorschach drawings. As the psychologist asks him to identify each picture, the patient describes a sexual act taking place in the picture. Finally, the psychologist states that the patient seems obsessed with sex, to which the patient replied, "Me? You're the one with all the dirty pictures!"

That is to say... To a person so inclined, anything may be a sexual image or metaphor; to the innocent mind, nothing is a sexual image or metaphor. Porno soit qui mal y pense.

"Gervex was undeterred and inspired by Manet’s decision to exhibit his Nana, another scandalous depiction of a literary courtesan, after its rejection from the Salon the previous year, Gervex opted to show Rolla at Bague’s gallery on the fashionable Chaussée d'Antin. The whole of Paris came to see it and what followed is one of the great succès de scandales of 19th century art."

In describing the scene depicted the Sotheby's piece says the prostitute, Marie, "luxuriates" while Rolla plans to end his life. I think she's dozing but I guess one can doze as part of luxuriating.

I saw a magazine with a report of "Porn" from Saudi. It was a picture of a woman in an abaya, (It is a long robe or cloak, usually black in color. It is worn over the clothing and covers the whole body. It is worn by women when they are in a public place in Saudi.) It showed the woman's ankles and her bare feet!I think in some countries Western artists would be imprisoned for their depiction of women either nude or scantily clad as shown by Kevin. We here in the West are more open to nudity. What one person considers porn another may consider "art". I think where you draw the line between ‘art’ and ‘porn’ really depends completely on the viewer, and I don’t think there’s any hard-and-fast rules we can give, because it’s ultimately subjective. It was a subjective decision by the Lulu partners to reject your initial cover Joe, just as the "Salon" rejected "Rolla".

I saw a magazine with a report of "Porn" from Saudi. It was a picture of a woman in an abaya, (It is a long robe or cloak, usually black in color. It is worn over the clothing and covers the whole body. It is worn by women when they are in a public place in Saudi.) It showed the woman's ankles and her bare feet!

It's a fact that Victorians (middle and upper-class ones only, that is) used to cover the bottoms of table legs up, if they were carved in the shape of anything that looked like a foot. Speaking of an Abya, I saw a young lady wearing one, and it was so thin it was almost see-through in bright light. Under it she had a just visible thong and bra on. Paying lip-service only to their religious laws ...

These laws were only invented by religious leaders who were celibate (and still are) and did not want the thought of sex or temptation put in to their minds, if it's even possible for them not to think of it. It's nothing to do with actual religion, many 'laws' are not.

I think in some countries Western artists would be imprisoned for their depiction of women either nude or scantily clad as shown by Kevin.

Indeed, but in some of those countries I bet they own art showing it.

We here in the West are more open to nudity.

Since the 1960s only perhaps, apart from in art, but it does have to be classed as 'art', Playboy was never classed as art.

What one person considers porn another may consider "art". I think where you draw the line between ‘art’ and ‘porn’ really depends completely on the viewer,

Then again, it could be classed as porn, due to the porn laws. But some do think that nudes are porn, and some think that ... well, I won't say what, is not porn.

and I don’t think there’s any hard-and-fast rules we can give, because it’s ultimately subjective.

https://www.covenanteyes.com/2016/01/29/is-naked-art-a-form-of-pornography/ I think this article by Matt Fradd is very interesting, So if one agrees with Matt both Joe and Kevin must ask themselves what is their goal with their paintings?As Fradd says "The goal is to get the intention of the artist and the viewer in sync, along with the goodness and dignity of the human person."

Well, Fradd makes some good points but, I think, gets a little off the rails on others.

I found myself amused by the comments he and Waldstein made regarding Michelangelo's thoughts and motives (especially Fradd's apparent ability to read the artist's mind: "if Michelangelo was told his paintings in the Sistine Chapel did little to arouse delight and instead aroused a strong sexual desire, he would either be bothered that his paintings had this effect or worried about the mental health of the informer."). For instance, when one realizes that Michelangelo was gay, this throws a very different light on his depiction of the naked human body---if nothing else, it explains his difficulty in depicting realistic nude women, all of whom look like muscular men with breasts uncomfortably attached.

As opposed, say, to his depiction of men...

But the one line I really had some trouble with was this one:

The goal is to get the intention of the artist and the viewer in sync, along with the goodness and dignity of the human person.

Really? Does Fradd really mean to suggest that the goal of depicting the nude in art is to convey the "goodness and dignity" of its human subjects? Where does this leave the work of artists ranging from Goya to Ivan Albright and Lucien Freud?

But then again, Lulu do not look at the books unless someone uses the Report This button, and at times that could just be vindictive people, and even at times people one knows.

To emphasize this point - we cannot check every book that gets run through our system. So we rely on reporting to remove offensive material. If you see something that doesn't appear to comply with our standards, please report it.

Ron, Maybe Gadd looks at such artists subjectively and maintains that they are not showing respect to the human body or viewing it with "goodness and dignity." We'll have to ask him. It's just his point of view. I don't see much art in Tracey Emin's "My Bed," yet she was shortlisted for the Turner prize! Porn or art it's all subjective for the individual, but as Kevin said there are laws for films etc. Kevin I guess no one reported the 2 books you mentioned so they remain in Lulu.

Ron, Maybe Gadd looks at such artists subjectively and maintains that they are not showing respect to the human body or viewing it with "goodness and dignity." We'll have to ask him. It's just his point of view. I don't see much art in Tracey Emin's "My Bed," yet she was shortlisted for the Turner prize! Porn or art it's all subjective for the individual, but as Kevin said there are laws for films etc. Kevin I guess no one reported the 2 books you mentioned so they remain in Lulu.

Ah, but Gadd was speaking in absolutes, rather than qualifiers. I don't recall him ever saying even once, "In my opinion..." or "It's my belief that..."

He has every right to look at art and report on it subjectively, but he also has a responsibility to make it clear that his opinions are, in fact, subjective.

Well, it's all a moot point for me, anyway. I haven't seen any porn since I lost the needle to my pornograph.

To emphasize this point - we cannot check every book that gets run through our system. So we rely on reporting to remove offensive material. If you see something that doesn't appear to comply with our standards, please report it.

And what is Lulu's opinion (you right now) of those two examples I found in 'Erotica'? Finding those makes me think it's no wonder some people get confused as to what Lulu says is allowable or not.

The chap is right about what porn is, but I do think that some people analyse art too much, and I often wonder if they are artists themselves? You know, like professional food critics, who cannot cook.

So, speaking as an artist, I just do art because I can. People should not read anything 'deep' in to it. The art of semi-naked ladies I have done, was simply based on the sort of females seen in Manga, Marvel comics (and now films) and computer games (my offspring play.) I did them to see if I could, it's as simple as that. (And if anyone does want to view them 'deeply,' they should notice they are all SF in some way.)

My book covers? Why I do those speaks for itself. There's nothing to analyse, no one needs to try to guess what was in my mind, they just literally Show (he he) a scene from each story.

As to a lot of old masters, well, they had no cameras. Many made their living painting portraits, which can be seen in mansions still. Although some only painted themselves (selfies) and sold nothing. The incredibly rich could afford them to paint their ceilings and walls because there was no other way to do it. Nowadays people just buy wallpaper and paint, or huge posters.

Such a shame they named "The Turner Prize" after a great artist. Joseph Mallord William Turner would turn in his grave if he knew. Mind you the giant buttocks by Anthea Hamilton made me laugh out loud!

Copy and paste will not work for me (that's that little cross on my last posting) and Browse does not show all the folders on my PC, and even if I move an image to a folder it does show, and I choose that image, it does nothing! It's reet peculiar.